Ok, so solicitors that you pay for have said they will do my case, but it will cost literally £5,000-£15,000 They are not signed up to provide legal aid.
If you cannot afford that, or if you have a Human Rights argument, then you are eligible for legal aid. But every solicitor I have contacted has been giving the exact same excuse.. they go check & keep saying that their "department" is at Maximum capacity and they cannot take the case on & cannot say when they will be able to either.
They just give long lists printed of other solicitors.
I think it is a new excuse they have and are using if they just don't want to do it.
They just send the same lists out every time. They are not even finding a solicitor specific to your particular case requirements.
I just do not know how solicitors do not understand this...
I have had the Trial vacated twice.
I am trying to get the names & addresses of other witnesses. (some are in other live cases concerning the same site) Others are previous convictions/fixed penalty’s
The section 85 law of not being able to be convicted is the entire point (why) people cannot be convicted as it effects multiple cases.
How can they have separate cases that rely on facts & a road that effects those cases.. all of them. They should not have separate trials.. (Now that I already went & proved the signs were illegal already)
Because the Signs were already proved illegal, and I have had the council authority correct them.. It is officially proved. (councils must update the secretary of state, who in turn has to update the chief police officer regarding the issue of fixed penalty notices (under the road traffic offenders act issue of fixed penalty regulations)
Also the Crown Prosecution service who have taken over the case, are under obligation (as were the police) to disclose anything which might undermine the prosecution case (undoubtedly signs that are already proved illegal would be highly significant if not obligatory to disclose)
Really, the Prosecution & police are in so much err of process that really I should not have to defend this case at Trial.
Fair enough If you don’t do Civil Litigation.
But who exactly brought Action from the Royal Courts of Justice against Westminster Magistrates court in the Boris Johnson case recently? That was a criminal case. You can still bring action from another court without needing to be litigation.
You Just go to the Royal Courts (or local County court) and say.. This road Was not enforceable. The defendant cannot be prosecuted. And that court quashes the charge. In fact it was the case that the Westminster magistrates court should not even have issued the summons against Mr Boris Johnson.
That is the same situation I have. The police & CPS should not have pursued the prosecution against me. Or the other defendants. It has failed to disclose the Road Signage facts to the other party’s in the other cases which is a breech of procedure rules.
This matter could even be resolved using mediation to the CPS in my opinion and / or with the Police. Getting the names/details of the other drivers to give evidence of the detrimental misleading effects of those road signs is important to strengthen the defence anyway. And by that time, It would be very evident to all involved that there is a serious procedural error. Because they ARE all required witnesses in the sae set of facts & circumstances.... yet they find themselves having, or have had separate cases or even live ongoing cases.. This is why that Section 85 Exists. It is supposed to prevent this from happening.
If the Crown Prosecution & police had followed the rules, then this complicated situation of separate cases involving the same set of facts of the same signs effecting the same drivers would not have happened.
There are certain procedure rules about cases with the (same set of facts) and (same set of circumstances) preventing repeated or multiple trials. That’s the point.
I am pretty certain your other solicitors understand this. I am not working currently. I am eligible for legal aid. It DOES cover a driving offence.. Any offence where you BRING IN an argument concerning a Human rights argument. I know you aren’t a human rights lawyer. But you do driving law. & defence.. When I bring in a Human Rights argument it makes the legal aid available to the driving case. Because I make a plea of autrefois convict... Its a human rights argument.
Jeopardy of law is in the Human Convention of Human Rights... In fact... Because the witnesses I am requiring.. have many of them already been previously convicted, They are already themselves all eligible for the autrefois plea...
Basically the Prosecution & police have prosecuted a load of drivers they should not have done. That is against the rights of all those persons.. they are all being prosecuted unlawfully.. over & over at an unenforceable road site. Its in Breech of their human Rights. www.rcjadvice.org.uk/legal-aid/
The principle of ne bis in idem, also known as double jeopardy, means that nobody should be prosecuted and punished twice based on the same facts. The prohibition of double jeopardy can be found in Article 4 of Protocol no. 7 to the ECHR
the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) created a new set of rules for the application of the double jeopardy principle; dual proceedings are not excluded as long as certain conditions are met.
That means that proceedings in law, where the same set of facts & circumstances are present... it is within the law of jeopardy rule still.... So the Human Rights argument can be used, and that IS something which brings in allowance for legal aid (Even in any case what so ever) so Driving cases as well. (you probably didn’t know that)*
How we can help Solicitors need a contract to deliver legal aid and RCJ Advice has legal aid contracts in Family, Family mediation and Housing. To be eligible for legal aid you will usually need to show that: • your case is eligible for legal aid • the problem is serious • you cannot afford to pay for legal costs The kind of cases you might get legal aid for are • you or your family are at risk of abuse or serious harm, for example domestic violence or forced marriage • you’re at risk of homelessness or losing your home • you need family mediation • **you’re adding legal arguments or bringing a case under the Human Rights Act **
You already do driving law & defence. So, you CAN do the case. As a driving defence. And you are claiming on behalf of the defendant (me) Human rights breech. I enter the Autrefois plea. Which I have done.
We then will require at least all the drivers defendant contact details from 25/08/2018 until the date the road signage was corrected just before 2019. (we could apply for more contact details before then, but it would be a lot of time but we could raise a lot of funds that was for the legal defence. (it doesn’t need to be group litigation, it can be defence with a lot of witnesses.)
Basically by the time we have got into this.. the Prosecution & police are going to realise that they really need to accept they should have accepted the signs were not lawful. I think we should be able to negotiate a discontinuation by that time anyway with the prosecution.
I don’t think We would need to go to court by then anyway.
Its not that difficult to understand.
Its simple.... Having (already) been to the council.. I proved the road signage was not lawful. That instantly makes FACTS and CIRCUMSTANCES which are applicable to all the speeding offences at that site, because it is a fact that concerns & effects every case until the date the council corrected the road signage (& from the time when it was changed originally from 40mph to 30mph) Its why section 85 of the road traffic regulation act 1984 exist to prevent all this really. But the police & CPS just keep ignoring it and soldiering on. This is why we are pulling them up on it. (breech of procedure) They are under obligation to disclose it to those other cases.
Its like plasma Ball..... you put your finger on a spot and all the electric plasmas come together where your finger is. That is the Road Signage effect at the site.. It is a FACT and circumstance that unites the separate cases. The unity of facts & circumstances makes it that the court/CPS/Police should not be having separate trials over the matter. Which is why I am applying for the names & addresses of the other drivers as Witnesses.
I need help getting these require witnesses so we can 1. Get statements. 2. Get funding help (if needed) falls under human rights anyway by merit of (connected facts, making jeopardy of law between individuals as well as the road)
Its still the driving law of the road signage.
The fact its FACTS & Circumstances of people we will apply for obtaining brings our human rights argument into it. & we are all eligible for legal aid.. which you CAN apply for on our behalves.. it says so.. its doesn’t matter if its driving case.. the defendants have a human rights argument.
Human Rights arguments are eligible for free legal aid, under group litigation, for dual proceedings & Jeopardy of law, by article 4 of protocol 7 European Convention of Human Rights.